November 2016

Establishment, firm, or enterprise: does the unit

of analysis matter?
Job flows at the establishment and firm level are a
powerful tool for understanding employment dynamics.
The information at each of those levels is robust,
accurate, and timely. In addition, quarterly and annual
BLS Business Employment Dynamics data show that
enterprise- and firm-level series consistently track each
other and follow a similar pattern of peaks and troughs
over the business cycle.
Economic data for businesses are usually constructed at
the establishment level, the firm level, or the enterprise
level. An establishment is a single physical location where
one predominant activity occurs. A firm is an
establishment or a combination of establishments and, for
Akbar Sadeghi
sadeghi.akbar@bls.gov

the purposes of this article, is defined by its unique

Employer Identification number (EIN) issued by the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Firms operate in one
industry or in multiple industries. An enterprise is a firm or
a combination of firms that engages in economic activities
which are classified into multiple industries. An enterprise
may report under one or a number of EINs.
Data users often request data at one of these levels on
the assumption that the specific level sought is critical to
their analytical purpose. But are such levels of
aggregation significantly different? In this article, we
present a profile of U.S. businesses at all three levels and
quantify the differences in magnitude and trends. In
particular, we estimate gross job flows by size class at the
establishment, firm, and enterprise levels and assess the
effect of aggregation on the level and trend of gross job
flows.

Akbar Sadeghi is an economist in the Office of

Employment and Unemployment Statistics, U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
David M. Talan
talan.dave@bls.gov
David M. Talan is Chief, Division of
Administrative Statistics and Labor Turnover,
Office of Employment and Unemployment
Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Richard L. Clayton
clayton.rick@bls.gov
Richard L. Clayton is an economist in the Office
of Employment and Unemployment Statistics,
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

We analyzed our data by size class because many users wish to track economic data by size and believe that
the unit of classification is important. The perception is that multiunit businesses act as a whole rather than as a
collection of individual establishments. On the one hand, it could be that larger multiunit businesses make more
unified decisions to control hiring, close a plant or store, or lay off workers during economic downturns. This
argument supports the use of a higher level of aggregation than the establishment level. On the other hand,
businesses might make such decisions on the basis of each establishments profitability, product line, and
longer term prospects for contributions to the overall business. Why restrict hiring at a fully profitable and
growing location when other locations are suffering from insufficient demand? In this case, the firm may act
more like a set of individual establishments rather than a unified set of establishments.
When it comes to EIN-defined firm-level data, as opposed to the enterprise-level data for multilocation
businesses, the same argument for unified decisions at the top of the corporate structure favors data at the
enterprise level. However, businesses, especially large ones, may use different EINs not merely for
administrative purposes, but for economic reasons, such as making a deliberate distinction in their operation in
accordance with the heterogeneity of their economic activities (e.g., differentiating between manufacturing, on
the one hand, and retail and services, on the other). This distinction could also be based on giving a subsidiary
independence in its decisionmakinga distinction that is highly relevant in selecting a unit of analysis.
Therefore, there are benefits in recognizing the EIN as a distinct company identifier and not combining many
heterogeneous economic activities of a large enterprise into one unit of analysis.
Most businesses are single-establishment firms. Establishment-level data allow each individual location to be
classified into a specific industry. This kind of classification is critically important to local decisionmakers and to
businesses deciding where to locate.
For multiestablishment businesses, firm-level data are important for understanding corporate-level decisions.
However, multiestablishment firms do not always respond uniformly to economic events. Corporate
decisionmakers may make decisions that are based on overall corporate objectives or, alternatively, may look at
specific product lines and specific demand conditions. For example, a chain of restaurants might respond to a
nationwide recession by reducing hiring uniformly in order to preserve cash levels. Or the corporate leadership
might examine specific locations for slumping demand and restrict hiring in those locations or, instead, decide to
close unprofitable locations on a case-by-case basis. One could argue that, if the firm makes case-by-case
decisions, then it is really acting more like a series of establishments. Note that we are focused here on the
decisions of establishments, firms, and enterprises that affect employment and wages. Enterprise-level data,
like firm-level data, are needed to understand the behavior of the national economy, top-to-bottom
decisionmaking, corporate planning, and policymaking as they relate to employment and wages. Also,
corporate-level data at the highest level of aggregation may be useful for international comparisons.
Firm- and enterprise-level data present some issues for users. For example, many firms cross state lines,
making accurate state or local data somewhat difficult to construct. Furthermore, firms in more than one industry
pose similar issues regarding the accuracy of data. If we place the entire firm in a single, perhaps dominant
industry, we may overstate the significance of one industry while understating the others.
Table 1 gives a summary of uses, along with the strengths and weaknesses, of the foregoing units of analysis.
To have a better understanding of corporate business decisions, we need data at all three levels of aggregation.

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

However, when data are not available at all levels, we need to know the significance of the differences.
Quantifying these differences is the motivation for this article.
Table 1. Units of analysis: a comparative view
Unit of analysis

Establishment

Uses

Strengths

Weaknesses

Measuring economic
activity at precise industry
and geographic locations.
Data are available at the
national, state, and
county levels.

Measures economic activity at the precise

geographic (down to the county level) and
detailed industry level (up to the six-digit NAICS
code).
Establishment-level data are critical to the full
range of local decisions on training and economic
development.
At this level, comparisons across other local
levels are possible if firm or enterprise identifiers
are available. Higher level data (firm or
enterprise) lose the ability to profile accurately by
industry because cross-industry businesses
cannot be uniquely assigned to a single industry.

May not be the unit that

determines economic
decisions (profit
maximization, hiring,
etc.).
Establishment data may
not demonstrate the
parent company's
behavior.

Firm

Measuring economic
activity in
multiestablishment firms.

Measures firm behavior and how firms adjust to

economic conditions.

Less precise industry

and geographic
information, because a
firm may have multiple
locations and multiple
industries.

Enterprise

Measuring economic
activity at the corporate
level.
National and international
comparisons (global
supply chains) are
possible.

Measures enterprise behavior and how

enterprises adjust to economic conditions.
Data at this level are needed for the full national
picture and full business behavior view. Also,
enterprise level data are valued for comparisons
at the international level.

Less precise industry

and geographic
information, because an
enterprise may have
multiple locations and
multiple industries.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The rest of the article is organized as follows: First, we discuss business identifiers of the establishment, firm,
and enterprise level. Next, we report on the profile of U.S. multilocation businesses by enterprise and contrast
those businesses with businesses at the firm level. Then, we report the results of Business Employment
Dynamics (BED) gross job gains and losses at the establishment, firm, and enterprise levels by aggregating job
flows for companies with single and companies with multiple tax identification numbers. Finally, we evaluate
whether adopting the enterprise structure and generating data at a broader definitional level will change our
interpretation of the BED firm-size data in any way.

Business identifiers at the establishment, firm, and enterprise levels

Federal statistical agencies collect different business identifiers. Some agencies can publish business data at
one or more levels on the basis of the availability of these identifiers. For example, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) business universe frame, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), measures
business activity at the lowest level possible: the establishment level. For multiunit businesses, establishmentbased information is important so that each establishmentalong with its employment and wagescan be
placed in the correct industry and specific geographic location. The QCEW obtains the breakouts for multiunit
businesses from its Multiple Worksite Report (MWR). This quarterly report is obtained under unemployment

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

insurance (UI) reporting laws with built-in detail that makes the QCEW a unique business register in its degree
of accuracy at the establishment level. The MWR promptly identifies establishment births and deaths, because
businesses must report new locations and because they have an incentive to show closing locations.
The QCEW, however, is essentially an establishment-based business register. The establishment-based
reporting serves well for survey sampling. It is critical that survey samples represent the universe of
businessesan achievement that can be done only with an accurate depiction of the business details. The
QCEW can also publish data at the firm level, given that the EIN identifier for each record represents a legal
entity for a vast majority of multiestablishment employers that operate across different industries and regions in
the private sector. The QCEW does not, however, have an enterprise identifier through its normal reporting and
lacks data collection vehicles to link EINs under common ownership and control.
The IRS requires all active businesses to file a federal income tax return. Parent companies have the option of
filing a consolidated return for all affiliated companies or filing separate returns. Because the IRS is unable to
obtain establishment breakouts for multiunit businesses, it publishes data from its bulletin Statistics of Income
generally at the firm level and not fully at the enterprise level.
The U.S. Census Bureau is able to collect establishment-level data from its Economic Census every 5 years
and data on those businesses with employment greater than 250 in the intervening years. The Census Bureau
identifies the enterprise as the entire economic unit that is under common ownership or control (defined as
owning more than 50 percent of the voting stock). An enterprise includes all establishments, subsidiaries, and
divisions with the same or different EINs under the same ownership. The Census Bureau also obtains EINbased data from the IRS regularly and updates the information annually from the Report of Organization Survey
and other surveys.
The QCEW longitudinal database contains both establishment and firm identifiers. BLS obtained enterprise
linkages under a data-sharing agreement with the Census Bureau in 2012. As a part of this agreement, we
incorporated the Census-assigned enterprise codes into the QCEW longitudinal database and developed new
BED data for enterprises. Currently, in the BED job flow calculation, the establishment-level data are measured
by tracking employment changes at a single unit identified by unemployment insurance (UI) numbers and
reporting unit numbers (RUNs), and the firm-level data are measured by aggregating employment for all
establishments under the same EIN. The Census enterprise code provides a new level of aggregation
encompassing all of the various activities of the same parent company that are reported under different EINs.

Multilocation businesses: a profile

In March 2011, Census files had information on 168,000 multiunit enterprises that owned and operated
approximately 1.9 million establishments across the nation. The 168,000 parent companies in the Census
business register represented 301,000 EINs. The difference between the number of parent companies and the
number of EINs reveals that companies possess and report more than one EIN and shows the extent of the
difference in the number of businesses using the EIN or the Census company code as a business identifier.
However, in 2011, a total of 128,000 multilocation companies reported only one EIN. That leaves 40,000
businesses with multiple EINs, according to the Census business register. During the same period, using the

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

EIN as the parent company identifier, the QCEW reported that a total of 294,000 multilocation firms owned 2.3
million establishments. (See table 2.)
Table 2. Profile of Census Bureau and QCEW multiestablishment businesses, 200711 (in thousands)
Census Bureau file

QCEW file

Category
2007
Number of enterprise codes
Number of EINs
Number of establishments

2008

2009

2010

2011

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

186
177
176
173
168

317
311
309
305
301
281
289
291
289
294
1,844 1,872 1,866 1,878 1,885 2,190 2,283 2,323 2,306 2,346

Note: Dash indicates QCEW has no enterprise codes.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Enterprise vs. firm vs. establishment

Do the 40,000 enterprises with more than one EIN make a significant difference in the measures of employment
dynamics? Employment dynamics measure job flows in terms of business births, deaths, growth, and decline
over a given period (a quarter or a year) and measure net employment change as the difference between job
inflows and job outflows. This approach is in contrast to the standard static employment data, which show
employment levels at various points in time and measure changes as the difference between levels. The BED
program measures gross job gains created by units that open or expand, and gross job losses by units that
close or contract, over the course of a quarter or a year.1 The magnitude of these gains and losses depends on
whether the unit of analysis is an establishment or a firm. For single establishments, which constitute two-thirds
of the total records in the BED and 43 percent of total employment, this distinction is irrelevant, since the
establishment is the firm. For multilocation firms, however, the estimates of job flows by openings, closings,
expansions, and contractions at the firm level are lower than they are at the establishment level. The reason is
that expansions in some units of a multiestablishment firm may be offset by contractions in other units and make
the total expansions or contractions for the firm less than the sum of the individual expansions or contractions.
Moreover, if a multilocation retailer opens a new branch, it would be counted as an opening at the establishment
level but an expansion at the firm level. The net change in employment will not be affected by the unit of
measurement. However, both flow measures and net change will be different with regard to employment
dynamics by size class.
In the QCEW, firms are identified by EIN, which is a reasonable proxy for identifying firms in the BED size-class
data. However, table 2 shows that some firmsespecially large firms operating across many states and
industriespossess more than one EIN, for a variety of reasons.2 Through its Economic Census and Annual
Report of Organization Surveys, the Census Bureau has identified these companies and lists them under the
same ownership by issuing a company identifier or an enterprise code. We merged the Census multifirm
records with QCEW data by their common EINs, transferred company code information from the Census file into
the QCEW, and calculated the BED by aggregating employment for all establishments under the same

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

enterprise code. We then compared the results of the BED calculation of gross job gains and gross job losses at
the enterprise level with the corresponding results at the firm and establishment levels. Table 3 shows the
differences in gross job flows, as well as the number of units at the national level, among these three units of
measurement.
Table 3. BED levels and flows, by unit of analysis, March 2010 and March 2011 (in thousands)
Employment level
Level of aggregation

Employment
Establishment
Firm
Enterprise
Number of units
Establishment
Firm
Enterprise

Gross job gains

March

March

Net

2010

2011

change

103,524
103,525
103,525

105,430
105,431
105,431

6,672
4,799
4,721

6,707
4,823
4,744

Total

1,905 11,621
1,906 9,225
1,906 8,745
34
24
24

2,506
1,793
1,759

Gross job losses

Expanding Opening
units

units

Total

Contracting Closing
units

units

8,331
7,047
6,627

3,289 9,715
2,178 7,319
2,118 6,839

6,645
5,215
4,789

3,070
2,104
2,050

1,732
1,224
1,192

774 2,381
569 1,686
567 1,654

1,642
1,140
1,111

740
546
543

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

As expected, the net employment change remains the same for all levels of aggregation, but the magnitude of
gross job flows varies with the unit of analysis chosen. There is a higher level of churning when job flows are
estimated at a lower level of aggregation (the establishment). At a higher level of aggregation (the enterprise or
firm), expansions in some units offset contractions in other units, leaving job flows at a lesser magnitude. For
example, if a multiunit firm expands employment in some units and reduces employment in others over a given
period, so that the total employment of the firm remains unchanged over the period, then the impact of labor
turnover in the firm on both total gross job gains and total gross job losses will be zero. However, job gains and
losses at single units of this firm will add directly to the total gross job gains and gross job losses when
estimated at the establishment level. For this reason, gross job gains and gross job losses are always higher at
the establishment level than the firm level, and at the firm level than the enterprise level. Similarly, the number of
openings and employment from openings are also lower at the enterprise level than at the firm and
establishment levels. These openings are counted as expansions at a higher level of definition of a firm.
The gap between BED data elements measured at the firm level and at the enterprise level is not as significant
as the gap between BED data elements measured at the firm level and at the establishment level. For the total
number of units, there were 6,707,000 active establishments in the U.S. private sector in March 2011, compared
with 4,823,000 active firms and 4,744,000 active enterprises. The difference between the number of firms and
the number of enterprises suggests that, for the year ending March 2011, a total of 79,000 firms in the BED
could have been linked with other firms.3 The enterprise data showed 2,349 fewer openings and 2,551 fewer
closings in the same period and reduced both the number of job-gaining firms and the number of job-losing
firms by 32,000 each. The enterprise aggregation reduced the total gross job gains and total gross job losses by
480,000 jobs each. The 480,000 figure represented 5.5 percent of total gross job gains.

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

In addition to producing effects on the magnitude of gross job flows, a higher level of aggregation affects the
size distribution of employers across the nine size-class categories that the BED publishes. (See tables 4 and
5.) We found that the enterprise-level data have less employment in each of the eight size-class categories up
to 999 employees and more employment in the size-class category of 1,000 or more employees. We found
nearly the same thing for the number of units: the enterprise aggregation reduces the number of units in all nine
size classes, with a higher reduction in the smaller size classes.
Table 4. Annual BED levels and flows, by size class at the enterprise level of aggregation, March 2010
March 2011 (in thousands)
Employment level
Initial size class

Employment
Total
1 to 4 employees
5 to 9 employees
10 to 19 employees
20 to 49 employees
50 to 99 employees
100 to 249 employees
250 to 499 employees
500 to 999 employees
1,000 or more employees
Number of units
Total
1 to 4 employees
5 to 9 employees
10 to 19 employees
20 to 49 employees
50 to 99 employees
100 to 249 employees
250 to 499 employees
500 to 999 employees
1,000 or more employees

Gross job gains

March

March

Net

2010

2011

change

103,525
5,479
6,162
7,531
10,426
7,341
8,839
5,860
5,549
46,338

105,431
6,049
6,253
7,609
10,559
7,448
9,016
5,998
5,650
46,848

1,906
571
91
77
133
107
177
138
101
510

4,721
2,676
938
561
348
107
58
17
8
8

4,744
2,694
941
563
349
107
58
17
8
8

Total

Gross job losses

Expanding Opening
units

units

Contracting Closing

Total

units

units

8,745
1,699
1,075
1,067
1,221
722
731
423
334
1,474

6,627
919
669
711
882
584
662
406
326
1,469

2,118 6,839
781 1,128
406
984
356
989
339 1,087
137
615
69
554
17
285
8
233
5
964

4,789
387
596
659
780
474
474
257
224
937

2,050
742
388
331
307
141
80
28
8
26

24 1,759
18
931
3
337
2
228
1
159
0
54
0
31
0
10
0
5
0
5

1,192
468
273
201
147
52
31
10
5
5

567 1,654
462
761
63
383
27
256
12
164
2
50
1
26
0
7
0
3
0
3

1,111
317
323
231
153
48
25
7
3
3

543
444
60
25
11
2
1
0
0
0

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Table 5. Annual BED levels and flows, by size class at the firm level of aggregation, March 2010March
2011 (in thousands)
Employment level
Initial size class

Gross job gains

March

March

Net

2010

2011

change

Employment
See footnotes at end of table.

Total

Expanding Opening
units

units

Gross job losses

Total

Contracting Closing
units

units

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

Table 5. Annual BED levels and flows, by size class at the firm level of aggregation, March 2010March
2011 (in thousands)
Employment level
Initial size class

Total
1 to 4 employees
5 to 9 employees
10 to 19 employees
20 to 49 employees
50 to 99 employees
100 to 249 employees
250 to 499 employees
500 to 999 employees
1,000 or more employees
Number of units
Total
1 to 4 employees
5 to 9 employees
10 to 19 employees
20 to 49 employees
50 to 99 employees
100 to 249 employees
250 to 499 employees
500 to 999 employees
1,000 or more employees

Gross job gains

March

March

Net

2010

2011

change

103,525
5,502
6,221
7,685
10,974
8,236
10,609
7,285
7,120
39,892

105,431
6,082
6,320
7,772
11,132
8,372
10,819
7,426
7,222
40,285

1,906
580
98
86
159
136
210
141
102
393

4,799
2,686
946
572
365
120
70
21
10
9

4,823
2,704
949
574
366
120
70
21
10
9

Total

Gross job losses

Expanding Opening
units

9,225
1,712
1,090
1,092
1,289
810
862
508
421
1,440

7,047
929
681
731
937
659
782
489
406
1,432

24 1,793
18
934
3
340
2
233
1
167
0
60
0
37
0
12
0
6
0
5

1,224
470
276
206
155
58
36
12
6
5

units
2,178
783
408
361
352
151
81
20
15
8

Total

Contracting Closing
units

units

7,319
1,132
991
1,005
1,130
674
652
368
319
1,047

5,215
388
601
669
812
523
565
334
303
1,019

2,104
744
390
336
319
151
87
34
16
28

569 1,686
463
763
64
386
27
261
12
171
2
55
1
31
0
9
0
5
0
4

1,140
318
326
235
160
53
31
9
5
4

546
445
61
26
11
2
1
0
0
0

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Are these changes large enough to have significant implications for the relative contributions of small and large
firms to employment growth? Table 6 shows the share of the net employment change for each size class, for the
year ending March 2011, for all three levels of aggregation. There is a wide gap between the size-class shares
at the establishment level, on the one hand, and both firm and enterprise levels, on the other. The shares,
however, are moderately close between the firm and enterprise levels. Data show that a shift from the firm to the
enterprise level of aggregation reduces the share of companies with 1 to 999 employees by 6.2 percentage
points and increases the share of companies with 1,000 or more employees by the same magnitude. The
change, however, does not alter the ranking of each size class or the relative contribution of each to the total net
change. Firms with 1 to 4 employees remain the largest contributors, followed by firms with 1,000 or more
employees. Other size classes also kept their relative rankings unchanged under both definitions.

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

Table 6. Share of annual net employment change, by size and level of aggregation, March 2010March
2011 (in percent)
Size class (number of employees)
Total
1 to 4
5 to 9
10 to 19
20 to 49
50 to 99
100 to 249
250 to 499
500 to 999
1,000 or more

Establishments Firms Enterprises

100.0 100.0
43.7 30.4
9.6
5.2
8.0
4.5
11.5
8.3
8.3
7.2
11.8
11
3.2
7.4
.6
5.4
3.4 20.6

100.0
30.0
4.8
4.1
7.0
5.6
9.3
7.2
5.3
26.8

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure 1 shows the share of net employment change by size class for all three levels of aggregation. One
finding is that, between the firm and establishment levels, there is a shift in share from establishments with 1 to
249 employees to firms with 250 or higher, while there is a shift in share from firms with 1 to 999 employees to
firms with 1,000 or more employees between the firm and enterprise levels.
How do the two measures differ over a longer timeframe and over the phases of business cycles? The
differences in the BED data elements between using EINs and using the enterprise codes as shown in tables 3
5 highlight only one observation: for the year ending March 2011. Looking over the period from 2007 to 2011, we
matched the enterprise codes and corresponding EINs, and merged them with QCEW EINs from the third
quarter of 1992 to the first quarter of 2012. The enterprise identifiers for 2007 were used for all quarters prior to
March 2007, and the enterprise codes for 2011 were used for 2012 merged records. The standard BED
tabulating procedures and the dynamic-sizing method were applied in calculating gross job gains and gross job
losses at the enterprise level. The series were then seasonally adjusted and compared against the same
estimates at the firm and establishment levels. Figures 2ac, 3 ac, and 4 ac show the net employment
change, gross job gains, and gross job losses by major size classes.
Two findings emerge from these figures. First, gross job flows by size class at the enterprise level are very close
to gross job flows at the firm level. Second, the gap between the two series is stable and does not change
noticeably over time, making the patterns similar. In particular, business cycle properties of the series remain
intact and the increase in gross job losses and the drop in gross job gains and in net employment change
coincide in both the 2001 and 200709 recessions as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. In
a similar study comparing size classes by firm and establishment data,4 the peak-to-trough analysis yielded two
findings: similar cyclical movements, and different magnitudes of net employment change, across all nine size
classes. Adding an enterprise level to the mix, we found similar cyclical movements and an extremely close
magnitude of net employment change between the firm and enterprise size classes. Compared with firm-level
data, BED enterprise size-class data are slightly lower in gross job gains, gross job losses, and net employment
changes in size classes of less than 1,000 employees and higher in enterprises with 1,000 or more employees.

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

However, as table 6 shows, the relative ranking of the size classes in terms of their contributions to employment
growth remains unchanged.
We also made annual estimates of gross job gains and losses for 2007 through 2012. The results are shown in
figure 5, and they indicate that the differences in the magnitude of gross job gains and gross job losses between
the firm and enterprise levels are somewhat larger than they are in the quarterly data (because of a higher level
of job flows in the annual estimation). Even then, the gap remained stable and showed more consistency over
time.

Conclusion
The BED quarterly and annual enterprise-level series were consistently close to the firm-level series, and the
size-class data based on both levels of aggregation were not substantially different and followed a similar
pattern of peaks and troughs over the business cycle. With these findings, it appears that the current BLS
approach of using employers EINs as a proxy for company identifiers generates firm-based employment
dynamics data that are uniform, dependable, and consistent with other employment series, including Census
Bureau data. Although there are differences in the level of job flows based on firm and enterprise estimates, the
similarity in the trend data, stability in the relative share of the size-class data, and the fact that BLS data are
more frequent (quarterly) and more up to date (available 7 months after the close of the quarter) provide users a
powerful tool for understanding employment dynamics. However, data sharing and the use of the Census
enterprise code on a continual basis will help BLS to identify parent companies within the QCEW business
register.
The QCEW and Census business registers are both coherent and consistent by themselves, but there are
differences in their source, the periodicity of the data, and their definitions and collection methods. The Census
data come mainly from the Economic Census and annual Report of Organization Surveys and other
administrative records. The QCEW data, by contrast, are compiled from a single source: the quarterly
contribution reports on the employment and wages of workers covered by UI law. The QCEWs business
register is updated quarterly, whereas the Census business register is updated on a broad basis every 5 years
by the Economic Census and on a limited basis annually. Despite difficulties in matching records, the
information in these two registers, which is derived from different sources, can complement each other and, if
shared, can improve the quality of both registers, especially if used for all records. The QCEW provides data on
employment and wages, and information on mergers, acquisitions, spinoffs, and other corporate restructurings,
on a quarterly basis. The information is robust, accurate, and timely at the establishment level as well as at the
EIN-based firm level. The Census business register carries valuable information on corporate structures and
company organizations across states. Both statistical agencies can benefit from sharing various aspects of their
registers.

10

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

11

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

12

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

13

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

14

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

15

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

NOTES
1

For a thorough description of the concepts, linkage methodology, and definitions associated with BED, see James Spletzer,
Jason Faberman, Akbar Sadeghi, David Talan, and Richard Clayton, Business employment dynamics: new data on gross job
gains and losses, Monthly Labor Review, April 2004, pp. 2942, http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/04/art3full.pdf.
2

For reasons when a new EIN is needed, see Do you need a new EIN? (Internal Revenue Service, July 14, 2016), http://
www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Do-You-Need-a-New-EIN.
3

79,000 is the difference between the number of firms defined by EINs and the number of firms defined by the Census Bureau
company identifiers.
4

See Sherry Dalton, Erik Friesenhahn, James Spletzer, and David Talan, Employment growth by size class: firm and
establishment data, Monthly Labor Review, December 2011, pp. 312, http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/12/art1full.pdf.

RELATED CONTENT

Related Articles
High-employment-growth firms: defining and counting them, Monthly Labor Review, June 2013.
Linking firms with establishments in BLS microdata, Monthly Labor Review, June 2013.
The declining average size of establishments: evidence and explanations, Monthly Labor Review, March 2012.
Employment growth by size class: firm and establishment data, Monthly Labor Review, December 2011.

16

U.S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW

The births and deaths of business establishments in the United States, Monthly Labor Review, December 2008.
Business employment dynamics: new data on gross job gains and losses, Monthly Labor Review, April 2004.

Related Subjects
Employment

Firm size

BLS Programs and surveys

Statistical programs and methods

17